Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last month, Calvert County, Maryland, lost a legendary member of its community: John Alfred Prouty, one of Maryland's most successful local farmers. He died at the age of 87, leaving behind a lifetime of wisdom, friendships, and service to his community.

After serving in the U.S. Navy in the 1940s, Mr. Prouty took over his father's family farm. He ran it skillfully for decades, growing tobacco, corn, wheat, barley, rye, soybeans, heirloom tomatoes, and flowers--and he passed it on to his own son. He was one of the family farmers who are the backbone of American agriculture; he cared about conserving the land, keeping up with the latest agricultural techniques, and lending a hand to his neighbors. In the words of his son, John Prouty was ``as generous and as honest and as insightful a person as you could meet.'' And in between long hours managing his 160 acres, he took time to serve on the county planning commission and the county and state farm bureaus. For his lifetime of hard work, he was inducted into the Governor's Agricultural Hall of Fame this year.

Mr. Prouty represented the best of American farming, and I sincerely hope that the legacy he left behind will inspire all those in Maryland who work to keep their family farms thriving. I know that he will be an inspiration to all those he left behind: his wife Margaret; his children, Susan, John, and Elizabeth; and his four grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, last week, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle gathered together to celebrate a special milestone: the 50th anniversary of The Monocle restaurant, located at 107 D Street Northeast. Since 1960, The Monocle has been a Capitol Hill institution--a place where generations of legislators, staff members, and visitors have come together to share stories and good food. As they mark a half-century of success, I offer my congratulations to Connie Valanos, who founded The Monocle and has passed it down as a legacy to his family; John Valanos and his wife Vasiliki, who own and operate The Monocle today; and maitre d' Nick Selimos, who has worked there for more than 30 years. May The Monocle enjoy another 50 years as a Washington landmark.

Madam Speaker, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia is an icon of courage, dignity, and perseverance. He risked his life in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, he stood with Dr. King as one of that movement's most eloquent and inspirational leaders, and he has held steadfast to the principle of equal justice in every part of his public life, from the Freedom Rides to his service in the House. I am proud to call him a dear friend--and I am proud that his leadership has recently been honored with two prestigious awards.

On November 17, President Obama announced Congressman Lewis as one of the next recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. The award citation noted his courage on ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, Alabama, and his contributions to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act; it observed that ``John Lewis is an American hero and a giant of the Civil Rights Movement.'' The medal will be presented early next year.

On the same day, Congressman Lewis was also honored by the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation as the inaugural recipient of the LBJ Liberty and Justice for All Award. The award marks Congressman Lewis's lifelong commitment to the founding principles that were the watchword of the Civil Rights Movement. It also recognizes the determined legislative leadership that enabled President Johnson to turn the movement's moral vision into political action. The LBJ Foundation honored Congressman Lewis for ``his dedication to the highest ethical standards and moral principles [which] has won him the admiration of many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress.''

I am among those colleagues who have taken regular inspiration from the force of John Lewis's example. He has my sincere congratulations on these recent honors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation.

First, let me say that there were two messages that came from this election, in my opinion--maybe others as well, but certainly these two. One, we need to grow jobs. We need to have more jobs for our people. We need to grow our economy. The second was we're very concerned about the deficit.

I agree with both of those conclusions in this election, and I think we need to do both of those. To some degree, they're contradictory because, in the short term, in order to grow the economy we've got to invest in the economy and we need not take money out of the pockets of consumers.

Now, as a result of the tax bills that were adopted in 2001 and 2003, because we wanted not to have the scoring for a longer period of time and the deficit displayed exploding, they were made to sunset. That is to say, the tax cuts were put in place and then they were sunsetted. It so happens they sunset at the end of this month. That would mean, normally, if we allowed that Republican policy--which I did not vote for--to go into effect, that the taxes would increase on everybody.

What this bill does is it says no, we want to cap, and we want to make sure that no American has any tax increase on the first $250,000 of their income. No American. One hundred percent of American taxpayers would be exempt under this bill from any increase in their taxes on January 1 of this year.

One of the other messages that the American public said to us: When you can reach common ground, when you can reach agreement, why don't you guys take it? Why don't you move forward where you can agree and then spend time on that which you cannot agree upon? But at least do that on which you can reach common ground.

Now, I haven't heard all of the debate--I have been in other meetings--but my suspicion is that almost everybody, if not everybody, on the floor wants to make sure that the first $250,000 of income of any American is not subjected to a tax increase on January 1. That's my conclusion. Now, maybe somebody will come up and say, ``No, you're wrong on that,'' but if so, I stand to be corrected. But we have reached common ground, I believe, on that proposition. That's what this bill carries forward.

Now, we have disagreements.

As I said, the second message was they're very concerned about the deficit. I'm very concerned about the deficit which I think, as I was quoted in the paper yesterday or the day before as saying, it is the most critical challenge that confronts this country, that impacts on every other challenge we have in this country, including our ability to bring taxes down and create tax reform.

Now, we don't have agreement on other elements of the Republican tax program of 2001 and 2003 which will sunset pursuant to that policy on December 31. And the issue, therefore, before this House right now is whether we're going to hold hostage the first $250,000 of income of every American or we're going to say no, we have agreement, we'll resolve that, and we will then contend on the other issues. Whether we argue about the necessity to cut taxes on those over $250,000, on impacting small business, on growth of the economy, all of that is legitimate argument.

But I really do not believe we have disagreement on what this bill intends to do. It's just that some people think it doesn't do enough. I understand that.

But very frankly, my friends, in the House and in the other body, we have been holding hostage American policy to agreement on 100 percent-- or in the case of the Senate, on 60 percent. The American public are frustrated by that. I'm frustrated by that. I think that's not the way a legislative body works. A legislative body works by when you can create consensus, move forward.

Now, maybe somebody will get up and say no, we should increase the first $250,000 of income and let that sunset. I doubt that anybody said that. I doubt that anybody believes it.

But if you don't believe it, any Member of this House, then vote for this bill. Not only does it say income, but it takes earned income tax credits, it takes capital gains, it takes child care tax credits and says that the first $250,000 of income will not be subjected to an increase. I can't believe we don't agree on that. And I am hopeful that every Member will vote for this.

Now, I frankly want to say I don't think this is the final package. We know that the Senate has disagreement. We know that the White House has its own view. But this vehicle is going to be critically important if we are going to move this issue forward. And some people on the other side say let's act and let's act now. Fine. Then let's give them a vehicle on which to act.

Revenue issues, as we know, have to initiate in the House. Now, this vehicle is a vehicle that I think will be used and can be used by the other body to effect consensus policy. But let us not hold hostage that on which we agree to that on which we do not agree.

So I would urge my colleagues, vote for this legislation. Let's move this forward. Let's give the confidence to American working people that we are united in the conviction that in this tough economy at this time they ought not to see an increase in their taxes on January 1. That's what this vote is about. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, and, yes, Mr. Camp, the ranking member, who will soon be chairman of this committee, for their efforts on this bill, notwithstanding their disagreement on its substance. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Let me say to my friend, if he heard what I had said--I know he was listening, and I thank him for that--he and I both know revenue bills must initiate in this House. So if the Senate is to effect what those 42 Members suggested they wanted to see, then it must have a vehicle from this House on which to act. What I suggested and what I believe is that when you say this bill is dead, I think I am not sure I agree with you, because in my view it will be this bill on which they will ultimately reach whatever compromise is available in the United States Senate.

So, in fact, I think this is an important vehicle to reach perhaps the compromise that we all know is ultimately going to be necessary, while at the same time expressing the views of I think the overwhelming numbers of us that certainly the first 250--we may not agree on further, or another level or something, but certainly would the gentleman disagree with me that we all agree on the first 250 ought not to receive an increase?

I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to congratulate the chairman, as the Speaker did, for a lifetime of dedication to children, to education, and to health care. He has been a giant in all three of those activities and, in fact, understands the relationship between all those activities.

I also want to thank the ranking member for his work. I know that he's not for this bill, so we have a difference there; but I do not believe, as the previous speaker said on his side of the aisle, that he's not also for making sure that children have the proper nutrition and grow up healthy. We have a different perspective on how to get there.

The Centers for Disease Control tell us that over the past three decades childhood obesity rates have tripled. Nearly one out of every five American children between the ages of 6 and 19 is obese. That is a national crisis. That is a national security crisis. That is a crisis that we owe morally, ethically, fiscally, and as a national policy to address. That doesn't just mean a lifetime of health problems for those children. It means a public health crisis that we all pay for.

One of my favorite phrases is, Life is a series of alternatives, series of choices, but they're not free choices. Ted Agnew was elected Governor of the State of Maryland at the same time I was elected to the Maryland State Senate, and he gave a speech on the east front of the capitol of our State in Annapolis. One of the phrases in that speech has stuck with me since January of 1967. He said, The cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress. I want you to think about that: the cost of failure far exceeds the cost of progress.

The cost of unhealthy children is far greater than keeping those children healthy, to facilitating their not only nutritional but health needs. We pay for the failure to do so in the billions of dollars in health care costs each year, and we even pay for it in military readiness, with at least 9 million young adults, think about it, 9 million young adults in America who are too overweight to serve in our Armed Forces, nine million, according to a coalition of retired senior military leaders.

So, again, a health issue but a national security issue as well.

We can't reverse the obesity epidemic or solve child hunger overnight. We recognize that. But we can take an important step towards getting our

children healthier food by passing this particular piece of legislation.

And as has been pointed out time after time, this bill was passed unanimously in the other body. That means that this is not a partisan bill. This is not a bill on which there was great disagreement, and we know in the United States Senate there are people who are very concerned about the budget deficit, very concerned about growth of government, very concerned about many of the things that were expressed on this floor. They unanimously said this is a priority for our country and we're going to pass it.

This legislation takes important steps to increase access to school meal programs, improve the standards of the food provided and sold to our children, and strengthen accountability to produce healthier results for our children.

Among the bill's most important provisions, it increases reimbursements for school meal programs so that the food offered can meet today's health standards, not outdated standards. We've learned a lot in the last 15 to 20 years. We understand better what creates healthy children, is helpful or is not, food that may taste good but leads to obesity.

Now, we all have the opportunity to purchase that. I'm a big McDonald's eater myself. I understand that luckily whatever metabolism I have seems to work with respect to my ingesting all of those McDonald's hamburgers and french fries. I love them and I don't want to be told I can't have them. But I do know this: I have a great- granddaughter who's 4 years of age. She's going to be in school pretty soon. I want to make sure the food she gets in school, whether she buys it or it's provided for her because she can't afford it--luckily our family will be able to afford it--is food that will enhance her health, her well-being, her growth, her intellectual abilities because she will feel well.

This is a critically important piece of legislation that so many Members of the Senate and the House have worked so hard on. The bill also helps schools create and expand breakfast programs because nutritious breakfasts have been shown to correlate strongly with improved academic outcomes.

George Bush I was a big proponent of Head Start. One of the reasons he was a big supporter of Head Start is because he thought it worked. He thought it worked to make sure that young people have opportunities. One of those, of course, is having a breakfast so that when they're in a classroom they're not agonized about hunger. They're focused on learning.

When families face food insecurity and when schools do too little to pick up the slack, we are condemning children to higher chances of poor performance in school and poor health throughout life. This bill will also provide grants and outreach to increase participation in summer food service programs so that children can eat healthier food year- round.

I learned about the importance of those programs firsthand. I'm sure many of you have done the same on both sides of the aisle. You have visited programs in your communities that provide children with healthy meals. I was in La Plata, Maryland, a few months ago, and I saw the direct benefit to those children of the program that was available to them there.

Finally, this bill would continue school districts' role in creating local nutrition and physical activity programs, but it will also ensure follow-up to see these programs are implemented and that they meet their goals.

The health of our children has a distinct and direct impact on all of us, and all of us care about that. It's not a partisan issue. Every Republican, every Democrat cares about the health of our children. But caring is not enough. We need to act as well. Saying that we care, as the Bible tells, faith without works is dead. It's nice to say you have faith, but if you don't follow that with action, that's somewhat empty.

This is an opportunity to act. This is an opportunity to not only say that we care about children and their health and their nutrition and their welfare but it is an opportunity to act and make it so. Let us do that.

I congratulate all of those who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge its adoption.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ladies and gentlemen, we all want to pursue the legislative process. One of the things that has undermined the legislative process in this House perhaps on both sides is the ``gotcha'' amendments. This amendment has a worthwhile objective, obviously, of protecting our children. We're going to give everybody an opportunity to vote on this amendment in just a few short hours, and then we're going to pass this bill--because the gentleman's debate had nothing to do with this amendment until the last few seconds of his remarks.

His remarks went to the substance of this bill. He's opposed to this bill. He said he's opposed to this bill. This bill passed unanimously. Unanimously means that every Republican, as well as every Democrat, wanted to reach out to provide for child nutrition for America's children.

This bill, I believe, enjoys the majority's support on this floor. We'll pass this bill, and we will pass it tomorrow, but we're going to give Members on this side of the aisle, as well as on your side of the aisle, an opportunity to pass an amendment that in effect says, okay, if you want to put these regulations on these small providers in these small jurisdictions, fine, we will do it; we want to protect children as much as you do. And I've said that during the substance of our debate, that we wanted to protect children, and I'm sure you want to make sure the children are well fed.

So, my belief is that we will rise now. We will come back on this amendment, which is not related. We'll give you an opportunity to vote on your amendment, and then we are going to pass this bill and send it to the President of the United States, as the Senate of the United States unanimously voted to do.

Mr. Speaker, Ike Skelton is my brother. He and I are both Sigma Chi's. There's a lot of misinformation and misapprehension about fraternities and sororities. Sigma Chi was founded by seven individuals, one of whom was a gentleman named Jordan, and the Jordan standard requires of those who pledge that fraternity to live by certain standards. Those standards are what we would expect of all of us and hope for all of us.

I have been a member of that fraternity for over half a century. No Sigma Chi that I have met has been more faithful to meeting the standards of conduct and character and courage and fidelity to purpose than my brother Ike Skelton.

Ike Skelton is the father of a Sigma Chi and the son of a Sigma Chi and the grandfather of a Sigma Chi. Is that correct, Ike? I think I have it in order. But Ike Skelton has been a colleague in this Congress. Ike Skelton, as Mrs. Emerson said and as Speaker Pelosi said, and as others will say, is the quintessential example of what the American public would hope all of us would be. He's thoughtful, a great intellect, faithful, patriotic, and he teared, of course, as he mentioned the troops, the men and women who serve this country in uniform, the men and women who have had no greater advocate than Ike Skelton of Missouri, the men and women of our Armed Forces who have had no greater advocate in terms of not only the quality of their lives, their housing, their health care, their benefits, but also the assurance that they had the best technology that was available to make them not only as effective but, as importantly, as secure and safe as they could possibly be.

Ike Skelton is a good and decent man who has served his country extraordinarily well. He quoted the Tennyson poem, ``Ulysses.'' What a wonderful poem. He didn't quote the end of it, which is essentially that Ulysses, then old, Telemachus, the king, left to his son the duties of being king and brought his band of brothers together to go forth to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that Ike Skelton will continue to be an extraordinarily faithful citizen of this country, an unswerving supporter of those in uniform, of our Armed Forces, and of our national security, and one who will uphold the highest standards that this institution would hope all of its Members maintain, and he will continue to strive to seek to find and we know he will not yield. But in not yielding on principle, he will be faithfully courteous and respectful of others, as he has been every day on this floor, in his committee, and in the hallways of our offices.

His late wife was named Susan. My oldest daughter is named Susan. Susan Skelton, in the spring of 1981, came to Bowie, Maryland, and knocked on doors, and the doors opened and she said, I would like you to vote for Steny Hoyer for Congress. I loved Susan. We lost Susan a few years ago. She was

like her husband--a beautiful, beautiful person.

It is a sad day that Ike Skelton leaves this Chamber. It will not be today but in a few weeks, but it is a wonderful day for all of us to count ourselves blessed by being part of the life of this extraordinary, good, and decent man, Ike Skelton of Missouri. Ike Skelton, patriot. Ike Skelton, a wonderful, great American.

Thank you, Ike Skelton.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. This legislation is years late in passing. The injustices that it addresses are long term in being.

Today the House has an opportunity to bring an end to two historic injustices. We can do so by approving the settlement in the Pigford and Cobell class action lawsuits, helping to make amends to African American farmers and more than 300,000 Native Americans.

Few people in this Nation have been treated as poorly by their Nation as have African Americans and Native Americans. This was a continuing injustice that should have been addressed decades ago and, indeed, of course, should not have happened.

The Pigford settlement concerns a decades-old pattern of racial discrimination in Department of Agriculture loans to black farmers. For too long, farmers were denied loans because of their race. Even black farmers who received loans were paid significantly less than their white counterparts. In some cases, I am told that the amount of the loan on paper did not reflect the proceeds that were received. In fact, the proceeds were far below the face amount of the loan.

The Cobell settlement concerns mismanagement of Federal trust funds in which billions of dollars, billions of dollars in fees and royalties on reservation land were unaccounted for.

This bill can ensure that the individual account holders are properly paid. Now, I just said that, but unfortunately there are some who we will never be able to properly pay because they died before this injustice was righted. This will prevent similar mismanagement, hopefully, from reoccurring and resolve other outstanding land and water rights disputes that are deeply concerning to tribal governments.

Above all, passing this bill means living up to our obligation to those who have deserved better from the Federal Government. These settlements have been reached in court, and now it is our job to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its end of the bargain.

I am glad that this bill funds the Pigford and Cobell settlements without adding to the deficit, and I am also glad this bill can bring to a close an unfortunate blemish on the record of this government in dealing with its people. It closes an unfortunate chapter in our history.

I urge my colleagues, hopefully unanimously, to pass this piece of legislation. We did the wrong thing, but all of us acknowledge it is never too late to do the right thing. So that although this is late, this legislation is the right thing to do. Let us do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a sad occasion, but an appropriate occasion. I rise to pay tribute to two proud natives of Maryland who lost their lives in Afghanistan this fall, Navy Lieutenant Brendan Looney of Owings and Marine Lance Corporal Terry Honeycutt of Waldorf. I attended both of their burials at Arlington Cemetery. As I say, it was a mixture of deep sadness to lose these two young, extraordinarily capable, patriotic Americans, to be with their families, to learn what committed young men they were. At the same time, to be filled with pride that America has people like these two brave souls, willing to give their lives in the defense of freedom and justice and democracy and the safety and security of our people. I know that the grief their family feels is still fresh and that nothing can replace the loss they have suffered. But I want them to know the honor and awe in which we hold their sons' sacrifices.

Now it is our responsibility to keep their names, their memories, and their examples alive. Lieutenant Looney, a 29-year-old Navy SEAL, died with nine other American servicemembers in a helicopter crash in southern Afghanistan. Most of you read about that incident. He was a star lacrosse player at the Naval Academy and then chose to complete the grueling training required to become a Navy SEAL. Lieutenant Looney was recognized as the Honor Man, or top member of his SEAL class. And just 48 hours after marrying his wife, Amy, he deployed to Iraq. He served four deployments, four deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and tragically died just 2 weeks before he was to return home from that fourth deployment. He is buried next to his Naval Academy roommate and best friend, First Lieutenant Travis Manion, who died in Iraq in 2007.

Lance Corporal Honeycutt, the other young man to whom I referred, died at the age of 19 in the blast of an improvised explosive device in Helmand province, Afghanistan. As long as his parents could remember, their son wanted to be a marine. He stood out for his commitment in his high school Junior ROTC program, and on graduating, he met his goal. Sadly, his life was cut far too short. But all those who remember Lance Corporal Honeycutt speak of a man who lived to serve his country and who embodied the marines' deepest ideals of service, sacrifice, and inner strength.

In the words of his mother Christine, whom I talked to Monday this week, ``We have so much honor and pride and joy, knowing that he was the person that he was, and I can't describe,'' she went on, ``how proud we are of him. We knew him as the type of person that was ready, willing, and waiting to do anything for anybody.''

He did that for his country, for all of us who serve in this Chamber, for every one of our fellow citizens.

These two irreplaceable lives are among the latest costs of a war that has lasted more than 9 years. This is not the time or place to speak about that war's future or its end.

But I ask my colleagues only this: We must remember that its costs are measured in lives like Brendan's and Terry's, and treat every debate and every decision about this war with a gravity that honors those two souls and the souls who have also been lost and who currently serve.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my deep sympathy for the families who have lost so much: To Lieutenant Looney's wife, Amy; to his parents, Kevin and Maureen; to his brothers, Billy and Steve; and to his sisters, Erin, Kellie and Briget; and to Lance Corporal Honeycutt's parents, Terry and Christine; his sister, Dawn; and to his sister's husband, who currently serves as a member of the United States Marines; and to all the grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, and uncles whom we join in mourning the loss of these two brave, patriotic, extraordinary Americans. May God rest their souls and give strength and peace to their families.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to join particularly with my friend Frank Wolf, who is my good friend. We work very closely together.

Owen Pickett was the kind of Member that brought real respect to this institution. He worked on both sides of the aisle. He worked very strongly on behalf of our national security. He was a Member who was popular on both sides of the aisle. Owen Pickett and Norm Sisisky served together on this side of the aisle with Frank and me for many years.

Owen Pickett was someone who this institution could have justifiable pride in. We could look to him and say that is the kind of Member, frankly, that we all ought to be, showing respect for one another, working with one another on behalf of the American people and their security.

I rise to extend great sympathy to his family, but much more importantly than that, to give thanks on behalf of this institution and on behalf of our country for his extraordinary service.

I thank the chairman for his generous remarks. More importantly, however, I thank him for his very hard, focused, untiring work on making sure that, for the first time since 2004, we pass an authorization bill for intelligence.

I want to say that all of us have been engaged in this, but no one more than the chairman, and I thank him for his work. I also thank the staff, the staff director, and members of the staff who have done an extraordinary job as well. I know that the minority staff has worked hard on this as well, and Mr. Hoekstra, of course, who has been on the Intelligence Committee for many, many years.

I rise, Madam Speaker, in support of this intelligence authorization bill. The passage of this legislation, as I said earlier, is the first intelligence authorization bill to be passed since 2004. On something as critically important as our national security, national intelligence, it is unfortunate that we haven't been more successful in the past in passing a bill, for whatever reasons. This is a major step to strengthen our national security.

The bill continues policies that are working to help keep America safe from terrorist attack, policies which have been supported by two administrations. It also strengthens oversight of our intelligence community.

In a democracy, we have recognized in a bipartisan way that intelligence is critical, but in a free and open society it is also important that the people's representatives have meaningful oversight. While this community deserves the support of Congress, and it has always had mine, it also requires oversight by the Congress and direction from the Congress as to what policies the people's representatives believe ought to be followed. In my opinion, this bill does that.

The bill creates an independent inspector general with responsibility for the entire intelligence community. It reforms the briefing process for the bipartisan leadership of both Chambers and their Intelligence Committees, ensuring that the full membership of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are informed when briefings occur and making the briefings available to all members of the committees 6 months after the initial briefings.

It is critically important that we keep secret those matters which are important to keep secret for our national security. On the other hand, we know from history, we know from experience, that it is critically important, as I have said in the past, that the people's representatives have knowledge and briefings as to those undertakings of this community.

This bill provides for the development of a framework that will enable the Government Accountability Office to conduct proper oversight of intelligence activities and reforms the intelligence community's acquisition process to avoid waste of taxpayer money.

This bill passed the Senate with unanimous support from both parties. This is not a partisan bill. This is a bill that the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats believed added to the security of our country.

In fact, I agree with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, who formerly was, of course, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, with whom I worked very hard in a bipartisan fashion to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the help of my friend the chairman and the support of President Bush.

Kit Bond said this about this bill: ``We can do more to protect Americans from attack, and passing the intelligence authorization bill,'' referring to the bill that is on the floor, ``passing the intelligence authorization bill and improving congressional oversight over our spy agencies is an important first step.''

That is what Senator Bond said, the Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee, and now the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee.

I want to thank the members of the House Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle, especially, as I have said, Chairman Silvestre Reyes and his staff, for their very hard work in writing and securing support for this legislation. It was not an easy road. There was disagreement.

The administration, this House, the Senate, had to come to an agreement. They have come to an agreement, an agreement which I think is, as Kit Bond said, a step in the right direction, an important step, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

This is another contribution to strong and responsible leadership of our national security. I urge my colleagues to support it so that President Obama can sign it into law.

There is no higher responsibility than we have when we raise our hands in this Chamber to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. Clearly, one of our major responsibilities is to protect America from adversaries, whether they be domestic or foreign, and in that process have an intelligence community that has the capability of ferreting out those who would harm this country and its people. But we also need to have an active, engaged, and responsible, as we do, Intelligence Committee, both in the House and in the Senate, to ensure that the values that make this country so special are honored even as we take every step that is necessary and proper to defend and protect America and Americans.

I urge the passage of this important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for her question.

Clearly, this is, as the gentlelady points out, a very serious matter of great concern. And I want to say that we will join with the lady and with all of those who represent the region on both sides of the aisle to look at this matter to make sure that we give it our earliest possible consideration and action.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for yielding. Mr. Levin has been one of our hardest workers and leaders in the effort to make sure that American business can succeed and expand and create good-paying jobs for our economy.

I just heard the last of his remarks, but my presumption is he was saying, as we all know is the case, there is not a place that any of us travel in the United States of America, when we talk to small businesses all over this country, that they don't say: Congressman, one of the real problems I have is I can't get capital. I want to put an additional room on my restaurant so I can have some additional tables, and I'll have to hire some additional--maybe a cook and a waiter and waitresses and a receptionist, but I can't get capital. I know I can get the customers, but I can't expand.

That's what this bill is about. This bill is about empowering small businesses to do what they do so well.

In our work to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a result of the economic policies we put in place in the last administration, we're suffering under the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Only the Great Depression is analogous.

Businesses will play an extraordinarily important role in bringing us back; they are our economy's job-creating engine. Over the past year, 64 percent of new jobs came from small businesses. Keeping small businesses growing and creating jobs is essential to our economic recovery, and supporting small businesses is an essential part of rebuilding American industry, which is why this important small business lending bill is part of the Democrats' ``Make It in America'' agenda.

You're going to be hearing a lot about that agenda: ``Make It in America.''

There are an awful lot of people in our country right now who, understandably, are not sure they're going to make it in America. They're not sure their kids are going to be able to make it in America. They're not sure they're going to have a retirement on which they counted. ``Make It in America.''

Now, that has another meet meaning as well: make it in America; manufacture it in America; create good-paying jobs through manufacturing things in America that Americans will buy, and yes, the rest of the world will buy.

This is a plan to strengthen American manufacturing and its ability to create well-paying middle class jobs. Six Make It in America bills have already been signed into law. In addition,

Democrats have voted for investments in job-creating infrastructure projects, lower taxes for 98 percent of America, expanded Small Business Administration lending, a tax credit for small businesses that hire unemployed workers, and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employer health care. And we've done it in the face of a year and a half of near unanimous Republican opposition.

The challenges faced by small businesses are still, of course, significant ones. Last year, for instance, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even stay in business were turned down for a loan, which had an obvious impact on employment.

To expand the job-creating flow of credit, I urge each of my colleagues, not Republicans or Democrats but all of my colleagues, who all want to see small businesses grow, who all want to see jobs created, and, therefore, I urge all of my colleagues on either side of the aisle of whatever ideology, support this bill.

I talked to my small bankers last week. They say if they get this capital, they're going to lend to small businesses. I talked to my small businesses, and they say if this bill passes, they believe that they'll be able to get a loan to expand their business or to keep in business.

First, this bill creates a small business lending fund that makes it easier for small businesses to access the capital they need. It also establishes $12 billion in tax cuts for small business.

I've heard a lot of talk throughout my 30 years here in the Congress of the United States from the other side of the aisle about cutting taxes on small businesses. Well, this cuts $12 billion in taxes on small businesses. I would hope that you would feel that was consistent with what you said ought to be done. We agree. And we've done it. And we're trying to do it again.

These tax credits encourage small business investments by eliminating small business capital gains taxes in many cases; they encourage innovation by helping entrepreneurs deduct more startup expenses; they make it more affordable for business owners to invest in the equipment they need to expand; and, as I said, they make health care more affordable for the self-employed--all designed to grow and expand small businesses and to create jobs for the millions of Americans who have been hardworking Americans, lost their job, and they want to work and they're looking for work, and they can't find it. This is an opportunity for us to expand that job pool by an estimated 500,000.

In addition, this bill strengthens State and SBA programs that lend to small businesses. We have such a program in the State of Maryland. We think this will help. And it strengthens overseas competitiveness by funding export-promoting programs and by fighting for market access and a level playing field for American companies that compete abroad.

In all, this bill's provisions are projected, as I said, to save or create as many as a half million jobs.

Passing this bill is a test of every Member's commitment to the businesses that are the backbone of our districts. It is a measure of our support for their ability to innovate, grow, and employ more workers.

But as important as this bill is, it is not the end of our work to create small business jobs.

For instance, the House will soon debate Congressman Miller's bill to support lending for home construction--another example of Democratic efforts to support small businesses and create jobs.

I hope that every one of my colleagues sees fit to support this bill, not because it perfectly represents every view that you have--none of us vote for bills that reflect our views perfectly--but because the consensus of the business community is this will move us forward.

Vote for this bill. It's good for America. It's good for our people. It's good for jobs.

I thank my friend for yielding and for leading this Special Order. I was pleased to, with him, undertake this Special Order because of the timeliness of the crisis that confronts Sudan and the implementation of the agreement. I want to thank all of the Members for participating in this Special Order as well. It is important that we in the Congress stay focused and send a message, as I will here, that we are focused. And I applaud the gentleman for his statement tonight. I applaud him even further for his continuing leadership. Nobody in the Congress, in either the House or the Senate, has been more focused over a longer period of time, has traveled more extensively throughout the world, and to some of the most troubled spots in the world, and to Sudan, than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and I thank him for his leadership.

In fewer than 4 months, Southern Sudan will hold a referendum on independence, which was guaranteed by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

The CPA ended Africa's bloodiest civil war, a war which took almost 2 million lives and displaced 4 million. Yet the risk of descending into war again seems all too real.

Now, as on my congressional delegation to Sudan 3 years ago, our focus remains the same: Promoting peace, stability, and reconstruction across the whole of Sudan. This is not only our moral obligation but an important national security goal as well. We must work to ensure that Sudan does not become a safe haven for terrorists. Tonight we are here to send a message to all those who live in and care about Sudan. We support full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We support a timely, peaceful, free, and fair referendum on independence. And we support an end to the violence in Darfur.

These are immense challenges, to be sure. But Sudan's central government has shown that it pays close attention to the international community's intentions and actions, which is why we must present a unified, comprehensive position in our response to both the ongoing violence in Darfur and the north-south conflict.

I want to be absolutely clear: Darfur remains and will remain a point of focus for this Congress. We recognize that peacekeepers are struggling and in many cases failing to fulfill their civilian protection mandate, and that humanitarian groups are swimming in redtape and facing daunting security challenges.

President Obama and the international community must continue to push Khartoum on the issue of humanitarian access and independent human rights monitoring in the region.

In the wake of what appears to be a near collapse of the latest efforts in Doha, we must continue to strive for a viable peace process. Congress is watching. Congress will hold you accountable. Tonight, however, I want to focus my remarks on the need for full CPA implementation and specifically on ensuring that the referendum on southern independence takes place on time and, as I said, in a free, fair and peaceful manner and that results are respected by Khartoum and the international community.

With the referendum approaching on January 9, 2011, our own Secretary of State has said that we can hear the loud sound of a ticking time bomb--Secretary Clinton's words--the possibility of new bloodshed.

What can we do to prevent it?

The U.S. has stepped up its diplomatic efforts in southern Sudan, and is providing $12 million for elections security, allowing the government of southern Sudan to establish 11 joint operation centers in Juba and in the 10 states in collaboration with other partners.

I also want to applaud President Obama for attending Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's high-level meeting on Sudan this Friday at the United Nations in order to discuss what more the international community can do to ensure a fair and safe vote. My hope is that a powerful package of multilateral pressures and incentives will come out of this meeting and those that follow.

I also support the administration's efforts to prepare for January with former South African President Mbeki, who is leading the African Union's efforts in Sudan as well as with international financial institutions and international development agencies; but more can and must be done. We must hurry to establish a formal mechanism to help get the north and south to agreement on all of the outstanding issues. Such a mechanism must include buy-in from civil society in an organized way. The CPA is a positive model on this front.

The international community, including our own administration, must continue to remind those countries with a stake in the outcome, including Russia, Egypt and especially China, that it is in their own best interests to advance peace and stability in Sudan. This is an international responsibility. We must support U.N. peacekeepers and urge them to do more to protect civilians. We cannot simply throw our hands up in complaint about a relatively ineffective peacekeeping system. We must fix it.

Finally, efforts in south Sudan must not be solely focused on the day of the referendum but also, of course, on the day after.

The international community must step up efforts to prevent southern Sudan from becoming what the economists called a ``pre-failed state.'' We know the dangers that failed states pose to our own national security. We have seen that. If we want to prevent the emergence of a new one, the international efforts on everything from road building to literacy education to establishing a viable economy in one of the world's most underdeveloped areas deserves and should have our support.

Regardless of the steps we and the international community take, the decision to turn this vote into a foundation for peace instead of one for further war ultimately rests in the hands of the Sudanese. So my message to Khartoum is this:

Step up. Step up, Khartoum. At the risk of sounding cynical, surprise us. This referendum is part of a peace agreement that you signed in 2005. Come to the table. Work to advance a peaceful outcome, and don't lead your country back into war. The administration has clearly communicated to you that there are both painful pressures and real incentives on the table. It is your choice, of course, and rest assured that the United States Congress is watching your choice and will hold you accountable.

To the government of south Sudan:

The U.S. Congress is committed to the referendum, and firmly believes that it is the best mechanism for you to express your right of self- determination. Alternative approaches will only renew the turmoil that the CPA was designed to end--and will severely weaken the future of your people.

We need you to step up as well. We need you to come to the table as a ready and willing partner, and we need you to devote resources, time and energy to finalizing an operational plan and budget, agreeing on voter registration criteria and procedures, and hiring and training registration workers. There is hard work in front of you, but the reward in the form of your people's right to choose their own future is clearly precious.

To the Obama administration and the international community:

Thank you. Thank you for your efforts to strengthen peace in Sudan but to keep them going. We will all have to work vigorously to ensure that the referendum is a success, but the consequences of failure should be more than ample motivation for us all.

Friday's high-level meeting at the United Nations must be a productive and serious one, and more conversations must follow. They must be focused on how the international community will work together to assist in the technical, logistical and operational stages of the vote; to monitor and observe the process from start to finish; to guarantee implementation of the results; and to mediate in case of any disagreement. You have the Congress' full support in this effort.

To the humanitarian community, especially to the American-based NGOs working on the ground in Sudan:

You represent the best of American selflessness and generosity. You do God's work. Thank you for that.

This Congress pledges to continue advocating for improved humanitarian access so that you can continue to do your jobs and advance the goals for which you have put your safety and, yes, even your lives on the line. Improving the daily lives of people living in one of the world's most war-torn regions is a moral responsibility for us all.

Finally, to the people of Sudan:

We stand with you. You deserve far more than the bloodshed and death and dislocation that year after year have brought you. You deserve what we all deserve--a chance to live our lives and raise our children in peace. America will do everything in its power to ensure that January is the beginning of that chance, not its untimely end.

Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey--one of the senior Members of this Congress, the leader of our effort on the African continent--a continent so critically important to the future of the global community. I thank him for yielding me this time.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

9/11 will remain a day of infamy, as December 7, 1941, lives. It will also live as a day that we will always remember, lament the loss of life, and rededicate ourselves to the defense of freedom.

As we did 9 years ago, today we stand united, one people--united in memory of the dead of September 11; united in awe at the heroic sacrifices that graced that dark day and so many since; and united in resolve to defend our Nation, its ideals, that animated spirit, defend its people, defend its shores.

September 11 was a day of grief, of shock, and of fear. But as we reflect back on the terror of that day, these things are within our power: to keep alive the names and memories of the dead--they were read in New York, in Virginia at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania--to reclaim the unity of a day on which neighbor reached out to neighbor and our divisions were submerged; and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals that, no less than buildings, were the targets of the attack. Ideals were under attack, like freedom, freedom of conscience; rule of law; and, yes, religious tolerance.

For those reasons, I am proud to introduce, along with the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, this resolution commemorating the attack on America--its institutions, its values, its people.

For many, the shock of that day perhaps has faded. For some, however, especially those who loved and lost one of the 3,000, the grief is still fresh. But for all of us, the memory of September 11 is one we will carry with us, as I have said, as long as we live. It is a memory compounded of mourning for the victims, deep sympathy for those who held them dear; and profound pride for the first responders, firefighters, and police officers, and, yes, average citizens who came to the help of those in need. They served and they sacrificed--some their health, some their lives.

Terrorism is intended, of course, to provoke the worst in those it targets, but on that day their service showed America at its very best. So we remember. We remember in honor the 343 firefighters, 37 Port Authority officers, and 23 police officers who lost their lives along, of course, with the passengers on Flight 93.

How proud we can be of those passengers who learned what was happening, unlike most of us, unlike the people in the towers, unlike the people in the Pentagon. The brave Americans on Flight 93 knew what was happening, and they acted, and they gave their lives to save others who would have otherwise been targeted. And, yes, perhaps they saved this symbol of democracy. Many of us believe that is where Flight 93 was headed--to decapitate this Capitol. A building, yes, but a powerful symbol of the values of this country that are not just this country's but universal in scope.

We also honor those troops who have served far from home. They too have shown America at its best; not only those who have lost their lives in our country's service in Afghanistan and

Iraq, but all those who have served and are serving, as we speak, in harm's way, at the point of the spear, to make sure that any fanatics, whether they base their fanaticism on a faith or they base it on hate and prejudice, we will confront them. We will defeat them. We will protect our country. We will protect our people, and we will preserve our ideals. With their families, we pray for their safe return.

Not all of us can offer sacrifices so profound, but it does not have to be a day of crisis to join with our neighbors in service to our communities. It can be this day. Indeed, it can be every day.

As we commemorate the gravest attack in American history, we also renew our resolve in the face of those who still intend us harm. This is a day to remember our commitment to defend America from whatever threats that confront us and to use all of our military force, all of our diplomatic skill, and all of the power of our moral example to keep America safe.

Like the Cold War before it, this is a struggle not just of arms but of ideologies. And every demonstration that America is a fearless society, a Nation of law, and a home for every faith is a victory over the fanatics who attacked us or who might attack us. That is our resolve--not as Democrats or Republicans, not as Members of Congress, but as Americans who have pledged ourselves to defend the Constitution of the United States, the laws thereof, and, yes, its principles and ideals. This will be expressed in a vote in this House today. But in the courage of our troops, the watchfulness of our intelligence, and the power of free American citizens to live out the meaning of our ideals every day, that will be the testament of our victory and the display of our resolve.

I rise in strong support of this resolution and in memory of those whose lives were taken by fanatics targeting not those individuals, per se, but targeting that in which they believed.